Agreed - the appropriate means for specifying the type system is
something I'm not sure we have a truly good answer for at this point
alas. We're way past being able to rely on an informal "H-M +
constraints from typeclasses" style description if we want to describe
even extensions that have be
Hi.
I've been talking to Herbert from time to time, and I know he's having
a draft announcement lying around, and is still planning on properly
starting the process soon, and has (this is my opinion, not his) just
been falling into the trap of waiting for a "good moment" which then
never comes.
I
In all honesty, Typing Haskell in Haskell is about as far as anyone
should push typechecking and type inference while claiming to still work
in a functional style. I don't think a good GADT pre-spec looks like
functional programming at all, it's a [constraint] logic programming
problem and part
Hi Richard,
> As a concrete suggestion, I wonder if we should have two goals:
>
> 1. Write down an updated standard for Haskell.
>
> 2. Write down pre-standards for several extensions.
I agree with both of these. It may even be useful to use goal 2 as a
stepping stone to determine what extensions
I stand by ready to debate standards and would enjoy moving this process
forward. However, I'm not in a position where I can lead at the moment -- just
too consumed by other tasks right now.
As a concrete suggestion, I wonder if we should have two goals:
1. Write down an updated standard for Ha
Hello all,
I'm curious if there is any progress on the reboot of the Haskell
Prime committee. It has been six months since the closing of
nominations and there hasn't been any word that I'm aware of. I've
also spoken to a few others that have self-nominated and they too have
not heard any news.
P
